The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at 4501 South 2700 West, in Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those attending and excused Commissioner Clyde and Commissioner Eastman from the meeting.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Bodily moved to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2000, Commission meeting held in St. George, Utah. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved.

Public CommentsGene Terry spoke about his concerns regarding the transfer of SR-224 to Park City. He asked what the reason was for the transfer, as it is an important road, and wondered if the state shouldn’t retain the rights to the road through Park City to the top of the mountain. The property owners in Wasatch County want to know if there is a plan that will set them in a position where they can get in and out without the difficulties they are starting to face. Chairman Brown stated that because Jim McMinimee is not present today, the Commission is at a bit of a disadvantage. Director Warne noted the item wasn’t on the agenda today because Mr. McMinimee is still working with the Park City officials on this particular matter. The fact is, SR-224 functions largely as a local road, and doesn’t serve the broader regional transportation need that perhaps it once did. Again, the negotiations with Park City haven’t been completed and this item won’t appear on the agenda until the Department feels prepared to bring an agreement back to the Commission for their approval. Mr. Terry asked to be notified of when the item will be on the agenda. Kathryn Paulsen of Brighton Estates also expressed her concerns. In the past when she has hiked to her cabin, the ski patrol has told her and her children they were trespassing on Deer Valley’s property, even though she was following the state road up to her cabin. She doesn’t want UDOT to give that right of way to Deer Valley if they can keep her from accessing her property from that direction. She would petition the State of Utah to retain ownership of the road and make it a major bypass between Park City, Brighton, and Heber City.

Resolutions10600 South, I-15 to Redwood Road Widening Project Environmental AssessmentAngelo Papastamos, project manager, said his purpose here today is to have the Commission act on the resolution. The needs for the 10600 South project were to improve capacity, manage access, maintain the system continuity, correct the roadway deficiency, and to provide alternative means of transportation. Mr. Papastamos said he believes they have addressed all those needs in the environmental assessment process with the proposed action alternative. In the public hearing that was held, there were no challenges to the proposed alternative. The proposed improvements include adding one additional traffic lane in each direction, and intersections would be larger with two left turn lanes, and a right turn lane added. There will also be sidewalks and curbing, as well as controlled access to the roadway by adding raised medians in specific locations. Several horizontal and vertical deficiencies in the roadway will be improved, and they will be providing a pedestrian overpass near an elementary school due to the width of the intersection. A striped and signed bicycle lane will be added to the shoulder of each side of the road, a paved 10 ft. wide bicycle/pedestrian path from the Jordan River will connect into the Jordan River trail, and there will be an undercrossing at 10600 South so the Jordan River trail can continue to the south.

Mr. Papastamos said they anticipate purchasing ten homes, and they estimate the total cost for the two-mile long project to be $21.5 million. Initially, a majority of the money was programmed in 2004, but he believes it has been moved up to 2001 and 2002. Chairman Brown asked if the project was at risk for air quality. Mr. Papastamos explained the project is classified as a minor arterial project. If state funds are used, then it isn’t at risk with conformity. However, if federal funds are used, it would be at risk. There was further discussion regarding funding and air conformity. Director Warne said they won’t be able to resolve the funding and air quality issue at this meeting, but they are obviously concerned about conformity. If conformity lapses before this project goes under construction, then it could be two or three years before it’s built. The Department is going to have to work with FHWA to sort through the funding issues, etc., but they’ll do all they can to get it through the system so it’s not impacted by the lapse in conformity.

Commissioner Wells moved to approve the resolution on the 10600 South, I-15 to Redwood Road Widening Project Environmental Assessment. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

Consolidation of State Highways SR-97 and SR-98Dyke LeFevre explained that when they did the overpass on 5600 South in Roy a few years ago, they also made a connection between SR-97 and SR-98, west of 3500 West, connecting the two roadways together. They thought it would be appropriate to make this one road, so they are proposing they do away with SR-98 and make both roads SR-97. All the signing on the Interstate and in Roy is for SR-97, so there would only be a few signs to change. Mr. LeFevre added that one other thing they are doing is transferring a piece of 5500 South to Roy City. Where they made the little cut off, it made a section that went back to a city street so it’s no longer a highway.

Commissioner Bodily moved to approve the resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

Planning and ProgrammingSouth Moore CutoffLinda Hull asked that the I-80 West Interchange item be postponed until Tracy Conti arrived. Chairman Brown moved to the next agenda item, the South Moore Cutoff. Ms. Hull referred to the map in the Commission’s binders and said there is a project that was approved by the Joint Highway Committee, which is currently in concept development. The project would eventually pave the entire length of the road. They want to start the environmental assessment on the entire length, rather than break it down into section. The Joint Highway Committee approved moving forward $250,000 into a funded year so they can begin the assessment. Then, they can start the paving project that will eventually come up into a funded year. Commissioner Wilson said this is the road the Commission was on last year as part of their tour. He said the BLM has the right of way through there with the County, and has also recommended doing the environmental clearance on the whole section of road, instead of doing it in sections. That is also the wish of the County. Therefore, the intent would be to do phases of the reconstruction with a couple of realignments on the entire route, with the last phase being paving of the entire project. Ms. Hull said the Commission needs to amend the STIP to bring this into a funded year to begin the environmental work.

Commissioner Wilson moved to amend the STIP and bring this project into a funded year. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved.

AeronauticsPanguitch Municipal AirportOgden-Hinckley AirportRichfield City AirportDave Miles said they have three requests for approval. The first one is at the Panguitch Municipal Airport. There is a current project that was previously approved, but during the course of the winter months, additional cracking has developed in the runway and they are asking for an additional $2,500 to take care of sealing those cracks. The local match would be $500. The second project is at the Ogden-Hinckley Airport. The scope of the project is for complete reconstruction of two taxiways and evaluation of some trees that have penetrated the approach to Runway 3, which may include removal. The third request comes from the Richfield City Airport, and is a request to redo their airport master plan. The intent is to look at the possibility of moving the existing runway, creating a new runway, and then using the existing runway as a taxiway. In order to do that and make it eligible for funding, they need to update their master plan first. The total cost will be $60,915. There was additional discussion regarding the FAA reauthorization bill and airport funding in the state.

Commissioner Larkin moved for approval of the three airport projects presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

I-80 and 5600 West Interchange (Grand Salt Lake Mall)Tracy Conti from Region Two said there is a $6 million dollar bond in SB 273 for road improvements at I-80 and 5600 West. He has been working on putting together a cooperative agreement between UDOT and the Developer. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Conti to review each of the items in the agreement. Mr. Conti said UDOT will provide a project manager for the project, which they have already assigned. The design consultant has been selected and the project manager will manage the consultant through the Department’s design process, and the developer will be put on the project design team. The project will be advertised and awarded, and the resident engineer will handle the construction management of the project. The Department will charge all their costs, including engineering services, etc., back to the consultant, and will essentially charge all review time and project management to the project. UDOT will not proceed with any work until the agreement is executed, and will reimburse the Developer for any UDOT costs incurred after the construction is complete if the total project costs are less than $6 million.

Mr. Conti continued and said the Developer will have to present their development plan to the Commission and demonstrate to the Commission’s satisfaction their commitment to proceed with the development. The Developer will designate what personnel they want as project team members, and they will deposit the amount the Department anticipates the design will cost to the Comptrollers office. Those costs will be reimbursable once construction is completed and the project is under the $6 million mark. The bonds will not be sold until the Commission makes an affirmative recommendation to the State Bond Board. Also, no costs will be reimbursed prior to the execution of the agreement, and the Developer will be responsible for all costs incurred on the project above the $6 million identified in the legislation.

Craig Peterson said this is the first chance they have had to look at the contract. They want to work closely with the Department and have confidence they can work any issues out. They’ve seen nothing in the proposed agreement that brings significant concerns to their points of view. However, there are some concerns of how the project will progress with Salt Lake City. They want to make sure they have a few more issues resolved with Salt Lake City, who just appointed a study team made up of three city council members to prepare and make a formal recommendation to the whole council by the first of May. Chairman Brown asked if there were any differences of opinions in what the scope of the project might be. Mr. Conti said they have not written a scope for the consultant, but agree it will basically be to move one ramp, add a loop ramp, and widen 5600 West. Mr. Conti said the last issue with this project is the goal to beat air conformity. Discussion ensued regarding the air conformity issue, and there was a review of the changes being made at the interchange. Linda Hull said she needs permission from the Commission to put the project out for public comment. Then, once the cooperative agreement is completed and the public comments have been received, they can come back to the Commission to put the project on the STIP and to get final approval on the agreement.

Commissioner Larkin moved to authorize UDOT staff to move ahead with this project and to finalize an agreement to bring back to the Commission. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

Review of Finalized UDOT Noise PolicyRandy Lamoreaux explained when the subcommittee group concluded their study last summer and the Commission adopted the noise policy in September, the staff immediately began working with FHWA to obtain their approval of the policy. There were some technical and editorial changes made, and the Department finally gained FHWA’s approval on the policy, which is now before the Commission for final approval. Lynn Zollinger guided the Commission through some of the changes. He said the most significant change is on pages 7 and 8, having to do with public involvement, under F. 1., where the local municipality of a community is required to lead the public involvement effort and support a noise wall project the Department may be proposing. Previously included in this was the 2/3 majority of impacted residents. Mr. Zollinger said they did require a 5 db noise reduction in order to be counted as an impacted resident. That’s a little more specific than the 3 db noise reduction that was previously accepted to tabulate impacted residents. Other than that, there are wording and grammatical changes that were important to include but did not affect the application of the policy.

Commissioner Wells asked about the definition of severe on page 9. Mr. Zollinger said item 7 on page 5 references severe, where severe traffic noise impacts are expected or exists where the cost criteria cannot satisfy the impact, then alternative noise abatement measures can be considered. Also, the definition of severe is page 9 under number 13, and says it’s a traffic noise impact which increases residential noise levels by 30 db or more over existing noise levels, or results in absolute noise levels of 75 db or more. Mr. Lamoreaux added that a request was made by an FHWA representative that the definition of severe be included, which had not been included previously. Ensuing discussion focused on the definition of severe, local government involvement, and the differences between type one and type two noise wall projects.

Commissioner Wells moved to approve the noise policy with the changes that are written. It was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

MPO Planning FundsLinda Hull said this is a continuation of the item from last month regarding the concern that the smaller MPO’s weren’t receiving a sufficient portion of the federal planning funds to be able to carry out planning responsibilities. The MPO formula was set up with a $50,000 base for all of the MPO’s, with the rest of the funds split based on percentage of population. The $50,000 base doesn’t give the Cache MPO enough funds to even do basic planning. Because of that, the Commission directed UDOT and the MPO’s to get together and come up with a revised formula the Commission could approve. Harlan Miller of FHWA has been involved in all of the discussions, as FHWA has to also give their approval. All of the groups have met and decided the $50,000 base wasn’t enough, but $100,000 was a more useable base. So, to come up with that higher base, if each MPO got at least 2% of all the planning funds, then split the remainder of the funds based on percentage of population, that would at least maintain the $100,000 base for the small MPO’s. By splitting the remainder of the funds based on population, it would address areas of growth, thereby addressing basic needs and responding to future growth. Ms. Hull said at the meeting on Monday, there was still considerable concern, particularly from Wasatch Front Regional Council, that they were going to take a hit in their budget. The group did agree in principle that the MPO’s shouldn’t take a negative hit as a result of the changes to the formula. However, the MPO’s also shouldn’t get a benefit either. It was proposed that the State should pick up the 6.77% local match that has to go with the federal funds.

Ms. Hull referred to the handout. She explained the numbered sections and said number one is the distribution of funds based on the current formula. Number two is the distribution of funds based on the proposed 2% base with the remainder divided among population. Number three is the difference between the old formula and the proposed formula. She noted that WFRC loses some funds under the proposed formula. Number four is what would happen if the state picked up the local match, and number five is the total of the proposed formula plus the local match. Number six is the change between the current formula compared to the new formula, with the state picking up the match. Number seven shows UDOT’s 5.27% share if the MPO’s were responsible for 1.5% of the 6.77% match. Number eight shows the MPO’s share under that split. The MPO’s will split number nine, and number ten is the transit planning funds. Chairman Brown asked about the source of state money that would pay for the loss of funds. Ms. Hull replied it would come out of state construction funds, or orange book money. The planning funds are fully expended.

Ms. Hull said she proposes going with the 2% phase plus the remainder divided among the population. Then, for the next two years, which would give the MPO’s time to plan their budgets accordingly, the Department would fill in the gaps in 2001 and 2002 so the MPO’s wouldn’t have a net loss as a result of the change to the new formula. And since the Wasatch Front Regional Council would be the only MPO taking a loss, it would be about $39,000 the state would make up for those two years. Director Warne stated it’s an issue of fairness and doing the right thing by the smaller MPO’s. They’ve got to have a minimum of money to function. And to reduce WFRC’s funds just because it can be done isn’t right. This is a way to ease them out of it. Chairman Brown stated that he really doesn’t want to use highway money.

Dannie McConkie, Davis County Commissioner, said they probably have a different point of view. They applaud the efforts being made and support the other MPO’s. They know what the needs are and understand the flow of federal funds. They also support the benchmark being raised to $100,000. However, if the MPO doesn’t do the planning, the state doesn’t get the money to spend. Commissioner McConkie added that it’s inappropriate for them to have to use county money to fund planning for state highway projects. That’s why he thinks the partnership needs to be with state funds. Will Jefferies from the Wasatch Front Regional Council said federal law requires WFRC and UDOT to be partners. Federal law also says there needs to be a transportation planning process, and all federal funds have to be spent on the projects that are developed through that process. Mr. Jefferies said in the past, they have put up all the match for the federal dollars, and they did that by assessing their counties and cities, and by using anything the legislature gave them. They have also supplemented the planning process in a number of ways in order to meet the minimum requirements in the federal regulations. Additional discussion focused on staffing at WFRC and at Cache MPO.

Chairman Brown reiterated that he’s not sure state construction dollars should be used to support WFRC. He has a hard time believing that $39,000 is really going to impact their budget that much. Mr. Jefferies said they haven’t seen any numbers until today, but they came to endorse what the committee discussed earlier this week. There’s no question the Cache MPO cannot do what they need to do on the budget they have. It was agreed that regardless of how this comes out, they would all maintain their current contributions above and beyond anything else. Mr. Jefferies said WFRC supplements their work program with contracts with UDOT, and the funds are used to supplement the planning process because they can’t complete the process with just the federal funds plus the state match. Commissioner Bodily said he appreciates the support the Cache MPO has received from WFRC and MAG, and recognizes they have been allies to them. It isn’t their intention to necessarily take away money so their MPO is better able to carry out their functions. He does see this as a problem where everyone suffers a little bit. But the pain on the part of the small MPO’s has been greater than it has on any other group in the state, and they’ll probably be the ones that gain the most from this right now. He also sees the St. George area way ahead of where Cache County was ten years ago. They’re coming into this MPO process gaining a lot of experience from others. And if an agreement can be made, they will start out at a higher level, not having to flounder like the Cache MPO had to do. There was a brief review and discussion of some of the sections in the handout.

Will Jefferies responded to the comment of whether or not a loss of $39,000 would hurt them. He said if they do have to take a loss, he would recommend to the council that they hold the county contributions the same, and that they break their long-standing rule of not using budget money for planning. They would take whatever funds they need to from an urban highway project and use it for planning.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion that in the interest of keeping the Wasatch Front Regional Council whole and providing the funding levels necessary for the new MPO and the Cache MPO, the Commission accept the proposal of subsidizing up to $39,000 for two years, and making the WFRC whole for that period of time. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wells.

There was discussion of the motion. Commissioner Wilson asked about a compromise and subsidizing for just one year. Commissioner Bodily said he was going to suggest the same thing, with a cap of $39,000. Chairman Brown said to either speak against the motion, make a substitute motion, or vote on the current motion.

Commissioner Bodily made a substitute motion that UDOT pick up the difference for WFRC for the first year, up to a maximum of $39,000, giving WFRC a year to adjust their program and absorb whatever shortfall they would have after that. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson.

There was discussion on the substitute motion. Commissioner Larkin said he likes the first motion. Commissioner Wells said she likes the first motion because she would rather not have to deal with this again in a year. Commissioner Bodily said, like Chairman Brown, he also hates to see the state having to step in and involve themselves. Voting of the motions followed.

For the main motion, Commissioners Larkin, Wells, Bodily and Wilson all voted aye. Chairman Brown voted no. The main motion carried.

Informational ItemsLight Rail Overpass at 8600 SouthDirector Warne said the Commission was previously alerted to the light rail overpass situation at 8600 South. UDOT is going to work with UTA to come up with some kind of a cooperative agreement to pay for the overpass. The Department is prepared to go to contract on a project next year, and doesn’t believe they should build a project without UTA building a new overpass. The Department will come back to the Commission at a future date with the terms of the agreement and how it will be financed.

Idaho DOT Meeting RequestIt was noted that a request was made by the Idaho Transportation Board to meet with the Utah Transportation Commission in August in Pocatello. After some discussion, it was determined that a few staff and Commission members could go to Pocatello the afternoon of August 24th to meet with the Idaho Transportation Board members. A Commission meeting could then be scheduled for August 25th in Salt Lake City. A decision of who would attend would be made at a later date.

Next Commission MeetingsThe next regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission will be held on Thursday, May 25, 2000, in Roosevelt, Utah. The following dates and locations were also scheduled:

June 23, 2000 - Tremonton

July 27, 2000 - Salt Lake City

August 25, 2000 - Salt Lake City

Chairman Brown said Director Warne needs to discuss a couple of items with the Commission in an Executive Session. Commissioner Larkin moved to adjourn the Commission into an Executive Session at 11:29 a.m. It was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

Following the Executive Session, the regular Commission meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance: